---

Civil Aviation Bill

moved Amendment No. 6:"After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—" ““AIRCRAFT INVOLVED IN ACTS OF RENDITION (1)   If the Secretary of State is aware of intelligence that any aircraft entering British airspace is being, has been or may be involved in an act of unlawful rendition then he may require that aircraft to land at a designated suitable airport. (2)   If any plane is required to land in accordance with subsection (1) a responsible person shall as soon as practicable— (a)   enter the aircraft; or (b)   arrange for a police constable or authorised officer of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to enter the aircraft. (3)   If the Secretary of State or other responsible person is aware of intelligence that an aircraft using airport facilities in the United Kingdom is being, has been or may be involved in an act of unlawful rendition then a responsible person may make arrangements to— (a)   enter the aircraft; or (b)   arrange for a police constable or an authorised officer of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to enter the aircraft. (4)   A person who enters an aircraft under subsection (2) or (3) shall endeavour to ascertain— (a)   whether the aircraft is being, has been or may be used for an act of unlawful rendition; (b)   whether a criminal offence has been committed; (c)   whether allowing the aircraft to continue could place the United Kingdom in breach of its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights; and for these purposes the person may search the aircraft. (5)   In order to comply with a power under subsection (4) any item may be removed from the aircraft. (6)   For the purposes of this section— ““an act of unlawful rendition”” is an act involving the transportation of a person to a territory where international human rights standards, in particular protections against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment, are not observed, such transportation not being in accordance with formal lawful extradition or deportation procedures; ““a responsible person”” means— (a)   the chief officer of police of a police force maintained for a police area in England and Wales; (b)   the chief constable of a police force maintained under the Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77); (c)   the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; (d)   one of the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would ensure that the UK could not in the future be in any way involved in the practice of extraordinary or unlawful rendition. There are no new arguments at this stage. I merely want to summarise and answer the Minister’s response on Report. I am very grateful to the Minister for a generous meeting earlier this week. He agreed on Report that there were no legal obstacles to stopping and searching aircraft suspected of being involved in unlawful rendition and that in fact the relevant conventions place a positive duty on governments to do so. He also said that adequate provisions already existed and that agreement had been reached with the US whereby it,"““would have to seek our permission and we would seek reassurance that it was acting in accordance with international law””." The Minister was asked in writing by myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, to point us in the direction of the existing legislation, to say when and where it had been used and to what effect, and to provide any formal or public statement of the agreement reached with the US on this matter. Had there been satisfactory answers to those questions I would certainly not have moved the amendment for the third time at Third Reading, but unfortunately there are no answers to what appear to me to be perfectly legitimate queries. The Minister says that the ordinary police powers cover the searching of aircraft, but has no instances in which those have ever been used. He repeats that there is no credible evidence that the UK has ever been involved in facilitating extraordinary rendition. But the law requires only ““reasonable suspicion””, and I believe that that is fully justified by the evidence from around the world that this odious practice has undoubtedly taken, and is taking, place. The Minister quotes from a speech recently made by the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in which assurances from the US have been sought and met. I respectfully submit that these words are not sufficient and do not reassure me. Nor do they convince me that there is any new agreement with the US or firm intention to ensure that the UK has made it abundantly clear that it will never condone any aspect of unlawful rendition. Here I must at least mention the report of the Vienna Commission which was published after the debate at Report stage of the Bill. This body was set up by the Council of Europe specifically to examine the legal obligations of member states with regard to interstate transport of prisoners and secret detention centres. The findings by six independent legal experts are unequivocal. I quote three short sentences from this document. It states that,"““it is worth underlining that Council of Europe member States are under an obligation to prevent prisoners exposure to the risk of torture . . . member States should therefore refuse to allow transit of prisoners where there is such a risk . . . as long as the plane is in the air, all persons on board are subject to the jurisdiction of both the flag State and the territorial State””." It insists that member states,"““must take all possible measures in order to prevent the commission of human rights violations in its territory, including its air space””." I do not think that the response we have had so far from the Government will give the public confidence that there are adequate procedures to pre-empt any future involvement in extraordinary rendition. Therefore, I beg to move.